Does GOD know the future?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think your understanding of 'making a choice' is necessarily an illusion. Partly because of the fact that if I asked you to describe what you mean you would fail because you haven't thought it through.

There is a distinct possibility that our understanding of anything is an illusion influenced by our individual perspectives. I am quite pleased that you didn't ask me to describe what I mean since you have preordained my failure, lol. 🙄

Originally posted by twhitehead
I misunderstood in what sense you were using the word 'belief'. So you would not place your confidence in a god that is not omniscient (because what you want requires omniscience) but this has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not such a god exists. Is this correct?
You seem like a really needy person.

"You seem like a really needy person."

True. Wouldn't it be accurate to regard all human beings as needy? Further, wouldn't the sensible ones focus on identifying the most critical of those needs as well as the means and/or source of their fulfillment? You, apparently, are not needy.

Originally posted by caissad4
I am quite pleased that you didn't ask me to describe what I mean since you have preordained my failure, lol. 🙄

And I am quite pleased that you are admitting your failure as per my prediction. 🙂
Its not often that my mind reading skills actually work.

But I must point out that you did, in fact, say what you meant. You stated that a preordained result is not a choice. Therefore you believe choice to be something that is not deterministic and contains random elements as input.
So to you, 'making a choice' involves random input, whereas I would still call a fully deterministic system 'making a choice'.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
True. Wouldn't it be accurate to regard all human beings as needy? Further, wouldn't the sensible ones focus on identifying the most critical of those needs as well as the means and/or source of their fulfillment? You, apparently, are not needy.

I am not as needy as you. I often believe in people even when all they offer me is something minor. You however seem to demand that an entity can offer you eternal life and can guarantee it by knowing the future, before you believe in them. Of course you run into logical problems in that if the entity in question knows the future and knows your eternal destiny, then it is not the one offering it as it is pre-ordained.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not as needy as you. I often believe in people even when all they offer me is something minor. You however seem to demand that an entity can offer you eternal life and can guarantee it by knowing the future, before you believe in them. Of course you run into logical problems in that if the entity in question knows the future and knows your eternal destiny, then it is not the one offering it as it is pre-ordained.

"... then it is not the one offering it as it is pre-ordained."

He knew who would voluntarily accept a grace gift; and pre-ordained their preferential relationship in time and for eternity, while leaving their volition uncoerced and intact: Omniscience and Omnipotence co-existing with human free will in time.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
[b]NOT a debate about the existence of god(s)!

premise: THERE IS A GOD

What are the consequences of a god that knows the future?[/b]

Perhaps God knows the future in a greater sense but does not know all the details of the smaller things. In other words God may know evil will be done away with in time but does not know what choices wolfgang will make in life. If choice is predetermined then the whole freedom of choice makes no sense.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF A GOD THAT KNOWS THE FUTURE

There would be no free will.
I know the bible says he knows the end from the beginning, but I think he makes events happen, not every detail of your choices in life, as someone has already suggested.

I guess I would compare it in a sense to a chess match, where he knows every move you can make and every outcome.
There are variables involved in life, I suggest that those who by prayer ask him to intervene in their lives get different results.

This can get so complex because of his ability that we can easily be overwhelmed trying to figure it all out.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Not clear enough. So are my decisions totally deterministic based on prior information I have gathered, or is there an element of randomness in your concept of free will?

[b]That's kinda the meaning of the word, if my math checks out.
Yes, I know. And if we added the three books of "The Lord of the Rings" to the collection would you still talk abo ...[text shortened]... aw? So it wasn't the future he saw in the first place.
Do you think he can change the past too?[/b]

Not clear enough. So are my decisions totally deterministic based on prior information I have gathered, or is there an element of randomness in your concept of free will?
Loaded questions.

I take determinism to include free will as part of its whole, i.e., one of the conditions upon which things happen.

I take randomnessReveal Hidden Content to have slivers of reflections of what occurs in life, i.e., we make a significant number of decisions without a conscious consideration of the same.

So I suppose we could say there is an element of randomness.

And if we added the three books of "The Lord of the Rings" to the collection would you still talk about 'read as a whole' and dismiss things in the New Testament because they no longer fit with the whole?
Your suggestion fails since LOTR wouldn't pass the canonical guidelines.

So I have a true name? When is it assigned to me? Do identical twins have the same name, or two seperate names?
Yes.
Precisely: away from the womb.
Every single person, unique name.

So God is no longer capable of action?
What types of actions are you imagining as necessary, exactly, which He didn't already consider?

So he saw the future, acted on it, changed it, and changed the future he saw? So it wasn't the future he saw in the first place.
Before anything was created--- anything--- He saw all possible outcomes, both potential and real, had a plan for all eventualities and acted.

Do you think he can change the past too?
All things are possible for Him, yet He acts in accordance with His character.
Changing the past is not consistent with His character.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
[b]NOT a debate about the existence of god(s)!

premise: THERE IS A GOD

What are the consequences of a god that knows the future?[/b]

What is the book of revelation?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
[b]NOT a debate about the existence of god(s)!

premise: THERE IS A GOD

What are the consequences of a god that knows the future?[/b]

What are the consequences of a god that knows the future?

For example, one could hold that there exists some infallible knower, G, subject to the following infallibility condition:

"Necessarily, if P then G knows P."

P here could of course cover any propositions indexed to the future, such as "Event E will occur" or "Person S will do action A" or etc, etc. To me, such an infallibility condition is quite profound: I don't see how you could have a condition that provides for any higher degree of perfection on one's cognition; whereas, at the same time, this condition entails nothing of interest by way of "consequences" in the current context. It entails nothing about what states of affairs will obtain in terms of which Ps are true or will be true (only that G has knowledge of them, to the extent that there are true propositions regarding them); it entails nothing regarding determinism; it precludes neither freedom of a compatibilist sort nor freedom of a libertarian sort (and I think that goes for G's freedom as well) and so there is no threat of theological fatalism; etc. So, to me, this is quite an interesting infallibility condition.

So, I think one could posit the existence of such a G without any interesting "consequences" in the current context. However, I would have a couple further comments. First, theists often have very different ideas of divine foreknowledge or infallibility than what I am outlining above; and these other conceptions may have big or radical "consequences". Second, even given what I have described above, one may make ancillary assumptions regarding Ps that are future-regarding. They may have to answer questions such as the following: are such Ps knowable to begin with; are some knowable but not others; do they have truth values; do they have only probabilistically-indexed truth values; do they have determinate truth values; etc, etc. Further, they may have to make assumptions regarding the truth-makers in these cases. For instance, if some P about the future is true, is it so in virtue of there already being facts that make it such; or is it so just in virtue that there will be facts in the future that make P true? I think the answers to these types of questions may carry relevant "consequences". These questions may delimit the scope of G's knowledge, even if G is as perfect a knower as there can be (or just delimit the scope of what may be known about the future simpliciter).

Originally posted by LemonJello

What are the consequences of a god that knows the future?

For example, one could hold that there exists some infallible knower, G, subject to the following infallibility condition:

"Necessarily, if P then G knows P."

P here could of course cover any propositions indexed to the future, such as "Event E will occur" or "Pers ...[text shortened]... r as there can be (or just delimit the scope of what may be known about the future simpliciter).

I think you're getting closer.

Not that the future has already been played out, but---- given God's overarching knowledge of everything/all things--- the only possible conclusions to which He comes are the sureties of the future actions.

He sees it as though it were, before it is.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I think you're getting closer.

Not that the future has already been played out, but---- given God's overarching knowledge of everything/all things--- the only possible conclusions to which He comes are the sureties of the future actions.

He sees it as though it were, before it is.

That is why he see's us seated in the heavenlies in Christ.

I am not certain if he see's it all played out or he makes certain things happen.
When I say certain, I am implying not everything.

Take for example David. I no longer believe he was God's first choice. I think David was God's plan "B".

1 Sam 13:13-14
And Samuel said to Saul, "You have done foolishly. You have not kept the commandment of the Lord your God, which He commanded you. For now the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. 14 But now your kingdom shall not continue. The Lord has sought for Himself a man after His own heart, and the Lord has commanded him to be commander over His people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you."
NKJV


God clearly says he would have established his kingdom through Saul. Saul blamed others when he sinned.
Now Daviid sinned as well, but he repented and said "against you only have I sinned". He didn't shift the blame, thus he was called a man after God's own heart.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I think you're getting closer.

Not that the future has already been played out, but---- given God's overarching knowledge of everything/all things--- the only possible conclusions to which He comes are the sureties of the future actions.

He sees it as though it were, before it is.

Not sure what you mean. If you think the infallibility condition I stated is close but not quite correct; then please amend it such that you think it is fully correct. So, in other words, please explicitly state what you take to be the correct infallibility condition for G's knowledge.

I think the one that I stated is pretty darn good already for the theist, in terms of resistance towards fatalist objectors and the like. As I have stated already in previous threads, I see no sound fatalist argument against it. But if you think there is even a better one; or if you think the one I stated is not quite correct; then please explicitly state some alternative. I'm interested to know what theists such as yourself take to be the content of the infallibility or omniscience condition(s) on G's knowing.

Of course, to show that some model for G's omniscience/infallibility is immune to fatalist attack; and to show that we have any reasons to think such a G exists; are two very different things. But we are leaving that aside for the purposes of this thread.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Not sure what you mean. If you think the infallibility condition I stated is close but not quite correct; then please amend it such that you think it is fully correct. So, in other words, please explicitly state what you take to be the correct infallibility condition for G's knowledge.

I think the one that I stated is pretty darn good already for the ...[text shortened]... ; are two very different things. But we are leaving that aside for the purposes of this thread.

I don't know how correct one can get to such a mind-boggling concept, really. Anyone on this side of experience who claims they have it figured out exactly is likely selling something.

That said, I agree that God's absolute knowledge doesn't have the impactReveal Hidden Contentwhich those who object typically blanch at.

I also agree with the thought that the statement doesn't offer any distinctions otherwise, either about God or His creatures.

The meaning behind the statement regarding getting closer has more to do with the precision of the one thought; it's worlds away from a comprehensive theology, but I see nothing to argue with you on that one thought.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
That is why he see's us seated in the heavenlies in Christ.

I am not certain if he see's it all played out or he makes certain things happen.
When I say certain, I am implying not everything.

Take for example David. I no longer believe he was God's first choice. I think David was God's plan "B".

[b]1 Sam 13:13-14
And Samuel said to Saul, "You ...[text shortened]... only have I sinned". He didn't shift the blame, thus he was called a man after God's own heart.

Take for example David. I no longer believe he was God's first choice. I think David was God's plan "B".
For that matter, human history is plan B!

However, plans A-Z, all are known prior to their unfolding... even those which could have unfolded but never did, He knows the actual and the possible from before He began creating in the first place.